Commerical Use Policy Update - New Thread!

[VGCgroupie]

I doubt the large renters would even care to read DIS boards , they could be renting 10 different timeshare companies , scalping Taylor Swift tickets and live in the Caribbean.

I know for a fact a few do read the boards.

 

[MyDogTink]

I’ve been meaning to type out a thought….
Some of the rental companies will advise that renters prefer to pick their dates but go on to say there are coveted dates and/or room categories that an owner can book and then will most likely be able to rent the confirmed reservation.

While that’s not commercial use because it’s not coming from one booking entity, it unintentionally does become commercial if enough if there’s enough individual owners booking that room category/date and then selling the confirmed reservation via a resale intermediary or individually.

So, DVC’s new rule or enforcement of existing rule doesn’t mitigate this outcome. Right?

 

[Sandisw]

Where/how to register? I’ll be at WDW early Sept and would be willing to attend…

You have to keep an eye out on the website under Condo Association news.

 

[Sandisw]

Indeed. I should have added a little more to the post. Let me be more clear.

Anyone reading here would assume….

All renting is okay. Policies are unchanged despite the updated polices. Status quo all around.

No one has every said all renting is okay. People have said that those who rent to the degree that DVC says is renting for a commercial purpose should be dealt with by DVC.

But there have been no policy changes. They added some clarifying language to the terms and conditions.

The official policy remains unchanged…and there have been no changes to what owners are allowed to do.

You can still use your ownership for yourself, family and friends and renters, as long as you don’t rise to the level of commercial.

DVC has, to date not defined what frequently, regularly, and occasionally mean, outside of the 2008/2011 policy nor have we seen any evidence in terms of enforcement of what they mean either.

As someone very wise said the other day, understanding how to use our membership, which includes renting, should not rely on individual interpretation.

DVC should be obligated to provide owners with clarification when asked if they are going to cancel reservations or lock people out of their memberships for renting to the degree that they are now commercial.

Honestly, if there are owners continuing to rent lots of points and haven’t changed practice, it’s because they have not gotten anything from DVC yet…might still be in the works.. that their actions are out of bounds.

 

[lowlight]

I’ve been meaning to type out a thought….
Some of the rental companies will advise that renters prefer to pick their dates but go on to say there are coveted dates and/or room categories that an owner can book and then will most likely be able to rent the confirmed reservation.

While that’s not commercial use because it’s not coming from one booking entity, it unintentionally does become commercial if enough if there’s enough individual owners booking that room category/date and then selling the confirmed reservation via a resale intermediary or individually.

So, DVC’s new rule or enforcement of existing rule doesn’t mitigate this outcome. Right?

Correct. The rental brokers are wholly responsible for the explosion of spec renting. It's something that has happened naturally in small doses, but after the pandemic when a lot of owners needed to rent out a glut of points, a few rental brokers took it upon themselves to steer all owners to make in demand spec rentals, instead of renting points. This didn't enrich owners, because the brokers scalped the extra profit off the top. There isn't any enforcement happening at all right now, and even if ever starts up, it wouldn't address this practice.

 

[Sandisw]

I’ve been meaning to type out a thought….
Some of the rental companies will advise that renters prefer to pick their dates but go on to say there are coveted dates and/or room categories that an owner can book and then will most likely be able to rent the confirmed reservation.

While that’s not commercial use because it’s not coming from one booking entity, it unintentionally does become commercial if enough if there’s enough individual owners booking that room category/date and then selling the confirmed reservation via a resale intermediary or individually.

So, DVC’s new rule or enforcement of existing rule doesn’t mitigate this outcome. Right?

Correct. DVC can only find an owner in violation of the commercial purpose policy, the 2008/2011 policy, as well as any other definitions they may have decided count against an individual owner.

If they want to make rules to impact this situation it would need to be done in a way that either doesn’t connect it to being a level of renting that means you are using your membership commercially, or make booking and modifications rules that have nothing to do with whether it’s renting or not.

Take renting of high demand rooms on spec. Right now, nothing prevents that because DVc has never defined that as renting for commercial purposes nor have the instituted a rule that prevents owners from changing lead guests.

They can put a stop to any lead guest changes and not tie it to rentals at all. Just make it a limitation of booking and changing reservations already booked.

What they have to decide is whether that level of change would be seen by the membership as a whole as a net positive change.

To stop that under some definition that it’s a pattern of rentals that leads one to be commercial enterprise might be a much harder to do…

Here’s what we know for sure,..based on the way DVC has acted in the past when it came to decisions that owners have called them on as being a violation.

They either stick with it or adjust…the 2020 point charts debacle is one in which they did redo things, which certainly would appear to mean that they knew maybe they were outside the lines.

The clause in the multi site POS that I don’t ever remember seeing states they can reallocate points across vacation homes..not units…which reads to me they believe they had the right to do what they did when they reallocated between treehouses and other units at SSR.

When DVC updated the T and C, they didn’t add anything specific..begs the question as to why not.

They have told me that if they change the official policy, they will decide how to best communicate that to owners.

That is why I watch the website to see if we get any updated HRR and try to keep an eye on the place where offical document changes are filed to see if something shows there.

 

[HyperspaceMountainPilot]

They would also understand that no actual policy have changed and MS giving different and wrong answers if asked.

The most common answers that MS has been giving (only friends and family) come directly from the Commercial Use policy, which has not changed but has been there since at least 2008, which define Personal Use as “for the use of accommodations by the DVC Member, the DVC Member's family and/or the DVC Member's friends (collectively, "Personal Use")”— that’s what Disney is going to claim people are agreeing to each time we check the box or tell the MS representative that it’s personal use.

Correct. The rental brokers are wholly responsible for the explosion of spec renting. It's something that has happened naturally in small doses, but after the pandemic when a lot of owners needed to rent out a glut of points, a few rental brokers took it upon themselves to steer all owners to make in demand spec rentals, instead of renting points. This didn't enrich owners, because the brokers scalped the extra profit off the top. There isn't any enforcement happening at all right now, and even if ever starts up, it wouldn't address this practice.

Depends what the enforcement mechanism is— if it’s disallowing name changes outside of people on the membership account, it would slow it down a lot. We’ve already discussed specific language in controlling documents that would allow Disney to stop name changes on rentals that were spec booked.

The question is whether or not Disney actually wants to enforce. My current theory is no, with a chance that they are putting themselves in a very strong position to do a massive crackdown in the event hotel bookings weaken further if the economy turns south.

If they want to make rules to impact this situation it would need to be done in a way that either doesn’t connect it to being a level of renting that means you are using your membership commercially, or make booking and modifications rules that have nothing to do with whether it’s renting or not.

The documents already say that you have to make rental reservations in renters name, so spec renting would be a technical violation.

When DVC updated the T and C, they didn’t add anything specific..begs the question as to why not.

The posters here familiar with crackdowns at other timeshares in FL (not me, DVC is my only timeshare!) said they like to keep it vague, so they already have a commercial use restriction and a very tight personal use definition in place since at least 2008, so unless commercial owners can trace their ownership before then, Disney doesn’t need to do anything else to stop commercial renting.

They have told me that if they change the official policy, they will decide how to best communicate that to owners.

That is why I watch the website to see if we get any updated HRR and try to keep an eye on the place where offical document changes are filed to see if something shows there.

Did Disney tell you they think they need to make any changes to stop commercial renting? I doubt they think they do.

 

[Sandisw]

The most common answers that MS has been giving (only friends and family) come directly from the Commercial Use policy, which has not changed but has been there since at least 2008, which define Personal Use as “for the use of accommodations by the DVC Member, the DVC Member's family and/or the DVC Member's friends (collectively, "Personal Use")”— that’s what Disney is going to claim people are agreeing to each time we check the box or tell the MS representative that it’s personal use.


Depends what the enforcement mechanism is— if it’s disallowing name changes outside of people on the membership account, it would slow it down a lot. We’ve already discussed specific language in controlling documents that would allow Disney to stop name changes on rentals that were spec booked.

The question is whether or not Disney actually wants to enforce. My current theory is no, with a chance that they are putting themselves in a very strong position to do a massive crackdown in the event hotel bookings weaken further if the economy turns south.

The documents already say that you have to make rental reservations in renters name, so spec renting would be a technical violation.

The posters here familiar with crackdowns at other timeshares in FL (not me, DVC is my only timeshare!) said they like to keep it vague, so they already have a commercial use restriction and a very tight personal use definition in place since at least 2008, so unless commercial owners can trace their ownership before then, Disney doesn’t need to do anything else to stop commercial renting.

Did Disney tell you they think they need to make any changes to stop commercial renting? I doubt they think they do.

DVC has confirmed to me that the 2008/2011 policy is the current offical policy in place so they already have one that can be enforced.

Now, once I received what I did I asked whether or not any other additional records existed beyond this because of the clause that it’s not meant to be exhaustive.

Because if other records or definitions exist. then I wanted all of them since the POS states I can review the records that have been adopted in regards to commercial use..

I was told that as of that date, only policy for what constitutes commercial use that is in play is the one I was sent.

Even if we assume others are correct and they don’t have to officially update documents to enforce other definitions not found in that official policy, , I have seen no indication that they plan to do more than enhanced enforcement of what is already on the books for the definition.

I get people are hoping that they will be doing more than using the 2008/2011 policy.

Maybe that is yet to come but what DVCs responses to me indicated is that for now that policy is it with the caveat that rules could change.

In terms of personal use? I am attaching the exact answer they gave me when I questioned the notion that we are only allowed to rent to family and friends or that agreeing to personal use of the T and C means we are agreeing we are not renting to someone we don’t know.

Per DVC, the context of those words is just to give an example of what is appropriate “personal use”

They admitted we can still rent to anyone, not just family and friends as long as it’s occasionally and doesn’t become a pattern….

So any notion that agreeing to that clause when booking a rental to someone who isn’t family or friends means you are somehow doing something against the rules? Not true

What does occasionally, or frequently or regularly or a pattern of rentals look like?

Of course, DVC didn't say which means it’s up to owners to guess if anything beyond the 2011 policy will be used.

I will be very surprised to see DVC do more than what is in that policy without updating it and/or the HRR to reflect a change.

However, until we get examples of enforcement, we have no clue if they are going to define it any differently or enforce it any differently than what that policy says.

ETA: Matter of fact, I am not sure we have any evidence they are even enforcing the offical policy

 

[Cyberc1978]

The most common answers that MS has been giving (only friends and family) come directly from the Commercial Use policy, which has not changed but has been there since at least 2008, which define Personal Use as “for the use of accommodations by the DVC Member, the DVC Member's family and/or the DVC Member's friends (collectively, "Personal Use")”— that’s what Disney is going to claim people are agreeing to each time we check the box or tell the MS representative that it’s personal use.

when MS quotes a text but only select parts taken out of context they basically give the entire document they quote an entirely other meaning and that’s the same as giving wrong answers.

 

[Sandisw]

I am adding another paragraph for information purposes only.

ETA: It certainly seems to me that they are reinforcing that this is the policy and that as owners, we will be notified if they update or change .

 

[Brianstl]

I know for a fact a few do read the boards.

Some do more than read the board.

 

[Chuck S]

I doubt they want any more member participation than the minimum amount that they are legally required to allow.

Broadcasting live via the internet does not, by default, mean that they will take questions from viewers. They could still do a remote viewing. I think Disney has done it before for Stockholder meetings.

 

[VGCgroupie]

Broadcasting live via the internet does not, by default, mean that they will take questions from viewers. They could still do a remote viewing. I think Disney has done it before for Stockholder meetings.

I think live broadcast or even after the fact broadcast is the bare minimum they should do.

 

[AstroBlasters]

I think live broadcast or even after the fact broadcast is the bare minimum they should do.

In 2025, this should be available over a live broadcast. I also think that owners should be able to ask questions beforehand and the ones with the most “upvotes” asked to the board.

 

[VGCgroupie]

In 2025, this should be available over a live broadcast. I also think that owners should be able to ask questions beforehand and the ones with the most “upvotes” asked to the board.

Amazing idea and seems like it could be fairly easy to implement if they wanted to.

 

[Sykes]

Broadcasting live via the internet does not, by default, mean that they will take questions from viewers. They could still do a remote viewing. I think Disney has done it before for Stockholder meetings.

It would be trivially easy to implement it and it's telling that they've chosen not to. I don't imagine that they want any more people viewing the meetings than already do--even if they don't take feedback it invites more engagement and the entire DVC model is built on owners being mostly passive and allowing Disney to operate the program as they wish with minimal engagement or feedback.

 

[Chuck S]

I am adding another paragraph for information purposes only.

ETA: It certainly seems to me that they are reinforcing that this is the policy and that as owners, we will be notified if they update or change .

It would be trivially easy to implement it and it's telling that they've chosen not to. I don't imagine that they want any more people viewing the meetings than already do--even if they don't take feedback it invites more engagement and the entire DVC model is built on owners being mostly passive and allowing Disney to operate the program as they wish with minimal engagement or feedback.

Remember, though. Management fee is a set amount. They couldn't charge dues more for doing a live netcast. It would come out of Disney/DVCs management cut. So that may be a reason they won't do it live, too. But still there's no reason they couldn't record it is put it online after the fact. It would even give them the opportunity to edit out anything, if some inappropriate/off color statement was made by an attendee.